Web lists-archives.com

Re: Debian Buster release to partially drop non-systemd support




On Wed 17/Oct/2018 23:06:24 +0200 Russ Allbery wrote:

>> You say "more than adequate". I don't particularly see it as providing a
>> solid system as you don't get restart on failure. Now I can see how
>> people say that this is not a problem as daemons should not crash in the
>> first place. Maybe I just value reliability of service more highly than
>> being woken up at night being told that my service is unreliable.

> My point is that sysvinit is a non-default configuration and it's
> reasonable to expect that it may be missing some features or robustness.
> If you have the time and resources to put into equaling the robustness
> that you would get under systemd, that's great, but sysvinit is much more
> of a fire-and-forget system and is known to in general not have that
> robustness property.  sysvinit users who care will run something like
> monit that watches health externally and takes appropriate action.

Given the flavor of sysvinit —an easily customizable boot process— a missing
init script may be better than a "wrong" one.  An init script can be a
no-brainer blueprint using Petter's init-d-script.  A missing init script,
which forces each user to write their own ones, would spare the hassle to check
if there's any real improvement on each package upgrade.

So here's a real advantage of systemd.  Since users who prefer spoon-feeding
use the latter, sysvinit can afford to let its users install a daemon and take
the time to grasp how it works, e.g. reading the man page /before/ running it.


Best
Ale
--